May 20 - Draw Mohammed Day

Status
Not open for further replies.
My reaction to this is, "go ahead if you want to, but please be honest with yourself and realize you're not doing this to make any kind of point, you're doing this because you're douchebag."
 
Jexhius said:
However, the day is based around a practice that many people do find offensive and everyone knows that.

Isn't there a more grown-up way of talking this problem?



I think they have proved that their tactics work, so why not?
So you think death threats are legitimate.
 
Kinitari said:
I'm sorry, where is anyone saying this?

Pseudo_Sam said:
I hold no respect for a religion that openly advocates violent retaliation against a simple pictoral representation of their idol, regardless of whether or not everyone in said religion actually does violently retaliate.


Kinitari said:
Legitimate protest or not, what a silly thing to protest - by all means, protest someone saying/drawing things that hurt your feelings.

True, I do find it silly to protest against.

But, for these people it may be a profound part of their religion. They don't feel that it's silly, they truly believe it.

But you can't just say that their feelings are offended if it is part of their beliefs.

Do I think this belief is reasonable? No.

Do I think they can go around issuing death threats? No.

idahoblue said:
So you think death threats are legitimate.

I'm pretty sure there's a huge difference between legitimate and effective.
 
Guileless said:
The day isn't meant to offend people; it's meant to assert a fundamental right that is central to our culture. Any offense you take is a by-product. If some speech is off-limits, an authority will have to police speech and punish offenders and that is antithetical to our core beliefs.

Expressing the right to free expression against threats of violence that actually work to silence the country's premier satirists is not absurd or ridiculous. I'm open minded, but I can't think of a more effective way of doing it.
First, I agree with the importance of free expression. However, I disagree that something like this is the most effective way of doing it. I think this way is pretty childish and I doubt many of the people drawing the cartoons aren't out to offend.

Look, you can't go around yelling "Niggers!" in the streets just because the black community has stigmatized the use of that word by other communities. Is it a fundamental right to do so? Yes. But I suspect you're not going to. May 23: "Run out in the streets of Harlem yelling 'NIGGERS!' day" would not fly. What are you going to say? It's just a word and any offense they take from that word is a by-product...?

This will be my last post for awhile. I need to get back to work. I appreciate the civil discussion by most, even when I fail to.
 
Maleficence said:
Tell me how this day is going to help anyone? I'd love to hear it.
It's a message of solidarity with artists who have been threatened or muzzled from doing the most innocent of things - drawing a historical figure. Having this day is an awesome idea to defuse the tension - of artists, or ANYONE who would be so bold and presumptuous as to draw a man.

The only thing childish here is expecting others to hold themselves to a religious stricture.

And yes, a few bad actors here DO ruin it for everybody - when those bad actors resort to violence.
 
Kozak said:
http://www.hr.nielsen.dk/mohammed/recent/muhammaddevareaux.jpg[/IMG

wat :lol

This isn't offensive, thats just plain stupid. The idea of Nazism didn't even exist in Muhammeds time.[/QUOTE]
This is one of the many cases where the problem comes from the "artist".
 
That depends on your definition of 'grown-up.' You probably mean something like 'politically correct.' In the culture that produced South Park, it is not 'grown up' to accept that some things are off limits because someone says so. We're past the point of "talking things over in a grown-up manner" when death threats silence the country's premier satirists, who mercilessly skewer every other target.
 
Baki said:
Thats not whats happening here though is it. Whats happening is that a bunch of people are actively gathering together to mock something which a lot of people hold dear.

This isn't about differing opinions. Its about mocking/insulting because they can.

Get the fuck over it and live your life.
 
I think they have proved that their tactics work, so why not?

Is this sarcasm that I'm missing or something?

It's pretty obvious that the death threats have backfired in the extreme. There would have been far, far fewer images of the prophet if they had never been made. Outside of a select few, nobody would care enough to draw it.

If everyone stopped drawing Mohammed it would make those death threats effective. Having a day dedicated to everyone drawing him makes those death threats far less effective.
 
Jexhius said:
I'm pretty sure there's a huge difference between legitimate and effective.
Yeah, but you just said every other group should use the same tactics, and you had no problem with that. Don't weasel, just because you never used the word legitimate does not mean you do not think they are legitimate.
 
Only reason i will draw this bloke on may 20th is because people think its the one bloke thats off limits to draw. Fuck off, i'll draw him if i want. Nothing to do with offending people, i just don't think anyone can band together in 2010 and say 'hey everyone else can be drawn but not our man!' Absurd. I'm not gonna draw him with a bomb or anything like that, i'm just going to draw a man. Suck it up.
 
Kozak said:
http://www.hr.nielsen.dk/mohammed/recent/muhammaddevareaux.jpg[IMG]

wat :lol

This isn't offensive, thats just plain stupid. The idea of Nazism didn't even exist in Muhammeds time.[/QUOTE]


...wow

That artist has some serious issues
 
Blair said:
Only reason i will draw this bloke on may 20th is because people think its the one bloke thats off limits to draw. Fuck off, i'll draw him if i want. Nothing to do with offending people, i just don't think anyone can band together in 2010 and say 'hey everyone else can be drawn but not our man!' Absurd. I'm not gonna draw him with a bomb or anything like that, i'm just going to draw a man. Suck it up.
Go ahead and be a sheep, or just draw him today and leave my birthday alone >:/
 
idahoblue said:
Yeah, but you just said every other group should use the same tactics, and you had no problem with that. Don't weasel, just because you never used the word legitimate does not mean you do not think they are legitimate.

Are you for real?

How can I weasel out of something I never said?

I can't imagine why you keep drawing conclusions out of thin air.
 
Bboy AJ said:
First, I agree with the importance of free expression. However, I disagree that something like this is the most effective way of doing it. I think this way is pretty childish and I doubt many of the people drawing the cartoons aren't out to offend.

Look, you can't go around yelling "Niggers!" in the streets just because the black community has stigmatized the use of that word by other communities. Is it a fundamental right to do so? Yes. But I suspect you're not going to. May 23: "Run out in the streets of Harlem yelling 'NIGGERS!' day" would not fly. What are you going to say? It's just a word and any offense they take from that word is a by-product...?

This will be my last post for awhile. I need to get back to work. I appreciate the civil discussion by most, even when I fail to.

You just don't get it. Have you seen the South Park episode where Randy is referred to as "Nigger-guy"? Because that's the correct parallel for the situation at hand. You've compared the depiction of the Islamic prophet to the physical rape of young children. Take a minute and think about how stupid that is.
 
Jexhius said:
So what? So people in the west have to prove that they are culturally insensitive?

Just people people protest against it, doesn't mean you've lost you're right to free speech.

If a station/newspaper chooses not to depict an image, that's up to them completely, how silly it may seem. You still have the right to free speech, but you don't have a right to get your speech broadcast around the country.
The death threats of Islamic extremists have created a climate of fear potent enough to cow major media establishments and your response is to claim that the media's choices to self-censor were made in a vacuum? You might as well say women have a "choice" not to take walks at night if they don't want to risk being raped. I'm not having any of it. If media outlets are concerned about getting bombed for doing what they exist to do, there's a problem, and the blame lies with the parties threatening violence. However, it must be said that the media should be doing their part to condemn the hysterical bloodlust that leads to the death of people like Theo van Gogh. Capitulation is a bad strategy when life and freedom are on the line.
 
if people will get scare just because a few thousand people threatened them, what's a few thousand people making fun of people? you say "what about the billions who didn't threatened you?" and I say "what about the billions of people who didn't make fun of you?"

my mantra: if it's worth taking seriously, it's worth making fun of. beside, I'm just thinking about drawing Muhammad saying what's up to Jesus and Moses.
 
PoliceCop said:
You just don't get it. Have you seen the South Park episode where Randy is referred to as "Nigger-guy"? Because that's the correct parallel for the situation at hand. You've compared the depiction of the Islamic prophet to the physical rape of young children. Take a minute and think about how stupid that is.
This post is just so ridiculous I couldn't help but reply.

What does South Park have to do with this day, other than being its impetus? If we had a day where we yell out nigger, what would happen? No one would do it. It is the perfect comparison yet no one wants to respond to it. It's waiting.

Here, try again: Look, you can't go around yelling "Niggers!" in the streets just because the black community has stigmatized the use of that word by other communities. Is it a fundamental right to do so? Yes. But I suspect you're not going to. May 23: "Run out in the streets of Harlem yelling 'NIGGERS!' day" would not fly. What are you going to say? It's just a word and any offense they take from that word is a by-product...?

I already recanted my physical rape comparison, which I never intended in the first place. If you're going to reply to my posts, read them all. Thanks.
Blair said:
http://filebox.me/files/1sjtrmgbq_yoyo.jpg[/][/QUOTE]
:lol :lol
 
Jexhius said:
Are you for real?

How can I weasel out of something I never said?

I can't imagine why you keep drawing conclusions out of thin air.
So say that death threats should not be used, are not legitimate, and should be endorsed. Thin air? You said they worked, so other groups should use them too. How is that not considering them legitimate?
 
I hate censorship,

I hate religious extremists of any creed,

but I hate lynch mobs mascaraing as light hearted movements (devoted to a day of slander),

...that being said, I hate sheep more than anything sooooo




I'll pass. Have fun geiz! :D
 
jakonovski said:
My reaction to this is, "go ahead if you want to, but please be honest with yourself and realize you're not doing this to make any kind of point, you're doing this because you're douchebag."
This is pretty much what I'm thinking.
 
jakonovski said:
Soooo, did you think that back in Abu Ghraib days? Just a curious question.
My fucking god...

Do you not recognize the difference between a drawing and incarceration, torture and death? Are you that blind?

Pro top: farts are offensive. Farts are NOT equal to the holocaust, baby raping, or whatever moronic thing you'll say next.

We're talking about a drawing here, people.
 
Monocle said:
The death threats of Islamic extremists have created a climate of fear potent enough to cow major media establishments and your response is to claim that the media's choices to self-censor were made in a vacuum? You might as well say women have a "choice" not to take walks at night if they don't want to risk being raped. I'm not having any of it. If media outlets are concerned about getting bombed for doing what they exist to do, there's a problem, and the blame lies with the parties threatening violence. However, it must be said that the media should be doing their part to condemn the hysterical bloodlust that leads to the death of people like Theo van Gogh. Capitulation is a bad strategy when life and freedom are on the line.

Yeah, that's what I said. Especially the part about women getting raped.

Did I deny that the media were caving to pressure? Indeed not, neither did I say that they were right to do so.

I'm pretty sure there is already plenty of condemnation of media censorship.

But that's entirely separate from this draw Muhammad day. If everyone drawing Muhammad suddenly made networks change their minds about censoring themselves, I'd say it was a good idea. But it won't. None of this will have any affect on anything.

idahoblue said:
So say that death threats should not be used, are not legitimate, and should be endorsed. Thin air? You said they worked, so other groups should use them too. How is that not considering them legitimate?

:lol :lol :lol

So, unless you actively deny that you're a rapist, Nazi, baby killer, then I'm to assume you are?

I can also say that shooting people is an effective way to stop them talking in the cinema, but that doesn't mean I endorse it.
 
NullPointer said:
My fucking god...

Do you not recognize the difference between a drawing and incarceration, torture and death? Are you that blind?

Pro top: farts are offensive. Farts are NOT equal to the holocaust, baby raping, or whatever moronic thing you'll say next.

We're talking about a drawing here, people.

Cartoon drawers are engaged in violence? What? Your post makes no sense now.

Edit: I mean, re-read your post. You were referring to those who resort to violence.
 
Bboy AJ said:
This post is just so ridiculous I couldn't help but reply.

What does South Park have to do with this day, other than being its impetus? If we had a day where we yell out nigger, what would happen? No one would do it. It is the perfect comparison yet no one wants to respond to it. It's waiting.

Here, try again: Look, you can't go around yelling "Niggers!" in the streets just because the black community has stigmatized the use of that word by other communities. Is it a fundamental right to do so? Yes. But I suspect you're not going to. May 23: "Run out in the streets of Harlem yelling 'NIGGERS!' day" would not fly. What are you going to say? It's just a word and any offense they take from that word is a by-product...?

I already recanted my physical rape comparison, which I never intended in the first place. If you're going to reply to my posts, read them all. Thanks.

:lol :lol

You can already say "ni**er". It isn't banned from ever being spoken. Objectively, you have racists who say it, some Africian Americans who say it casually, educational/historic videos, drama-realistic movies. Since we already have the ability, the free speech, to do these things, screaming it in the street only promotes racism and slavery.

Objectively, drawing Muhammad does nothing near offensive like what the word "ni**er" stirs up. You're not even supposed to draw tribute pictures like paintings of Jesus in Christian churches. But, alas, you get death threats when you draw him and people arguing about feelings, like they are protected from getting hurt, while tons of people get offended daily.
 
Bboy AJ said:
First, I agree with the importance of free expression. However, I disagree that something like this is the most effective way of doing it. I think this way is pretty childish and I doubt many of the people drawing the cartoons aren't out to offend.

Look, you can't go around yelling "Niggers!" in the streets just because the black community has stigmatized the use of that word by other communities. Is it a fundamental right to do so? Yes. But I suspect you're not going to. May 23: "Run out in the streets of Harlem yelling 'NIGGERS!' day" would not fly. What are you going to say? It's just a word and any offense they take from that word is a by-product...?

This will be my last post for awhile. I need to get back to work. I appreciate the civil discussion by most, even when I fail to.

It may be easier in the short term to dismiss this as childish and beneath contempt, but in the long term you would be better served by a full understanding of the importance free expression, especially against threats of violence, plays in this society in 2010. I recommend Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment by Anthony Lewis.

As for your example: direct incitements to violence, e.g. burning a cross in someone's yard, are not protected under the First Amendment. (The remaining members of the Klan have to apply for a permit and protest at the designated time and place just like everyone else.)
 
Jexhius said:
Yeah, that's what I said. Especially the part about women getting raped.

Did I deny that the media were caving to pressure? Indeed not, neither did I say that they were right to do so.

I'm pretty sure there is already plenty of condemnation of media censorship.

But that's entirely separate from this draw Muhammad day. If everyone drawing Muhammad suddenly made networks change their minds about censoring themselves, I'd say it was a good idea. But it won't. None of this will have any affect on anything.
Clearly analogies are lost on you.

The people who participate in Draw Muhammad Day will be doing what the media won't: taking a stand for basic human rights. Their shared purpose is to demonstrate that some people still care enough about free speech to exercise it when it really matters. The internet will carry that message all around the world. You wouldn't be able to stop it from having an effect on public opinion if you were a billionaire.
 
Monocle said:
The people who participate in Draw Muhammad Day will be doing what the media won't: taking a stand for basic human rights. Their shared purpose is to demonstrate that some people still care enough about free speech to exercise it when it really matters. The internet will carry that message all around the world. You couldn't stop it from having an effect on public opinion if you were a billionaire.

Yes, idealism is lost on me.

While some people will be doing this because they support free speech, others will be doing it just because it pisses off some other people. That doesn't detract from the rightness who do care about free speech, but it's hardly going to a group made up all of saints.

In four months, no one may remember. Unless someone gets killed for it.

It's not like anyone in the Western world is to suddenly say that they will suddenly support free speech again, because most people already do.

And from the Islamic corner, those who don't believe that free speech can include the depiction of Muhammad will carry on being angry.

Sometimes big-scale protests really do change the world. Other times, they don't. In this case, I'm imagining little will happen.
 
Bboy AJ said:
This post is just so ridiculous I couldn't help but reply.

What does South Park have to do with this day, other than being its impetus? If we had a day where we yell out nigger, what would happen? No one would do it. It is the perfect comparison yet no one wants to respond to it. It's waiting.

Here, try again: Look, you can't go around yelling "Niggers!" in the streets just because the black community has stigmatized the use of that word by other communities. Is it a fundamental right to do so? Yes. But I suspect you're not going to. May 23: "Run out in the streets of Harlem yelling 'NIGGERS!' day" would not fly. What are you going to say? It's just a word and any offense they take from that word is a by-product...?

I already recanted my physical rape comparison, which I never intended in the first place. If you're going to reply to my posts, read them all. Thanks.

:lol :lol

I can't work out from your posts whether you really are this obtuse or if you're just trolling.

The reason South Park is such a perfect example (apart from being the impetus for the whole OP) is that, as has already been mentioned, it did feature the use of the word nigger.

You don't need to go running around Harlem using it because there was no censorship to protest against.

Only when Islam was brought into the equation was freedom of speech stifled.

And that's ignoring the fact of how much it easier it is for muslims to avoid being offended by images on the Internet, compared to your example of protesters running around shouting in people's faces.
 
Everyone Deliberately Offend 1.5 Billion Muslims via Internet Meme Day

It's just so shameless and embarrassing. Carl Sagan must be rolling over in his grave.
 
I find it surreal that so many people are playing the "have sensitivity towards religion" card on GAF, where it's usually by far the minority voice in any thread.

Also, I can point out that another factor is that some are not considering / drawing attention away from the fact that a tremendous number of people are just sick and tired of hearing about Mohammed and death threats, and Muslims freaking out over it. I hate to sound this way (really - I do hate to have to point it out), but saying that lunatic overreactions to cartoons of Mohammed are a tiny 00.00001% minority of people who merely call themselves Muslims is actually disingenuous. The Mohammed controversy has legitimately caused riots.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the image that Muslims have garnered in the public consciousness is that of religious people who are from another age of human civilization and expect the entire world to turn and change its attitudes, mores, and opinions for their benefit. The issue of merely depicting a man called a prophet with a visual image - even if it was a non-offensive or respectful image - is something so inherently wacky to most non-Muslims, that I can't blame most of the world for going "Huh? You have to be kidding." What's more, there is a conspicuous lack of explanation from the the 1.7 billion "safe and normal" Muslims everybody keeps talking about. Nobody noteworthy who is a Muslim is coming forward and explaining why they deserve to get special protection when Christians have to put up with Raptor Jesus t-shirts. While Christianity doesn't have a byline saying that nobody can make a picture of Christ, I'm kinda under the impression that it wants people to take Jesus seriously and not mock him.

My own view is that I honestly don't care about your religious beliefs; think whatever you want to, as long as you don't inflict the consequences of those beliefs on anyone else unfairly and unjustly. Unfortunately, after a lot of thought on it, I just cannot defend the prickly-toetip sneeking around pictures of Islam's christ-figure. If Muslims want to ban pictures of their prophet hanging in the walls of their houses and places of worship, that's fine. They have no right however, to ban the rest of the human race from examining figures like Mohammed and that includes visually.
 
Monocle said:
Clearly analogies are lost on you.

The people who participate in Draw Muhammad Day will be doing what the media won't: taking a stand for basic human rights. Their shared purpose is to demonstrate that some people still care enough about free speech to exercise it when it really matters. The internet will carry that message all around the world. You wouldn't be able to stop it from having an effect on public opinion if you were a billionaire.


Oh cool! I can bash others and still I feel righteous! While I am here, go ahead and sign me up for draw swastikas on neighbors house day and hang nooses from trees day. Insensitivity and Intolerance is fun!
 
Jexhius said:
So, unless you actively deny that you're a rapist, Nazi, baby killer, then I'm to assume you are?

I can also say that shooting people is an effective way to stop them talking in the cinema, but that doesn't mean I endorse it.
So saying other groups should use a tactic is not endorsing it? Gotcha. I think other groups should threaten you with death to stop you talking. See how that works?
 
Kaijima and missbreedsiddx are by far my favorite posters on this forum. They know how to keep shit real. I've never seen either one of them make a bad post or say anything I could disagree with.
 
Kaijima said:
I find it surreal that so many people are playing the "have sensitivity towards religion" card on GAF, where it's usually by far the minority voice in any thread.

My own view is that I honestly don't care about your religious beliefs; think whatever you want to, as long as you don't inflict the consequences of those beliefs on anyone else unfairly and unjustly. Unfortunately, after a lot of thought on it, I just cannot defend the prickly-toetip sneeking around pictures of Islam's christ-figure. If Muslims want to ban pictures of their prophet hanging in the walls of their houses and places of worship, that's fine. They have no right however, to ban the rest of the human race from examining figures like Mohammed and that includes visually.
Yup, this is true, but people need to stop acting like they are some kind of fucking hero for ridiculing something that has nothing to do with them, but is important to someone else.
 
idahoblue said:
So saying other groups should use a tactic is not endorsing it? Gotcha. I think other groups should threaten you with death to stop you talking. See how that works?

Once again, you fail to read the words I write, and instead read what you think I'm writing.

Way back at the end of page three I said that pressure-groups, if they wanted to be successful, could threaten to use violence to get their way. After all, it's a tactic that has worked for them.

That statement above, is completely neutral. It relays only facts. We call such statements empirical.

If I were to say that : Pressure groups should threaten violence, because it works.

Then I'd have made a normative, and prescriptive statement.

Normative in that that, violence is a legitimate method for getting things done.

Prescriptive in that, you ought to use violence to accomplish your goal.

But, once again, I never made that claim.

Kaijima said:
Whether anyone likes it or not, the image that Muslims have garnered in the public consciousness is that of religious people who are from another age of human civilization and expect the entire world to turn and change its attitudes, mores, and opinions for their benefit.

This is very, very true.

However, this is partly the fault of the news media. It's quite often that calm, reasonable and fluent Muslims get interviewed on news networks.

Often they say that, no they don't want to kill anyone over pictures.

However, the news will run that story once, because it is boring.

They will run, however, hundreds of times, stories about angry Muslim extremists because that really gets people's attention.

This certainly gives the Muslim world a bit of a PR problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom